Adolescents and young adults with physical illness: a comparative study of psychological distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: There is limited research investigating the relationship between physical illness and psychological distress among adolescents during the transition to young adulthood. This study examined risk for clinically relevant psychological distress over a 10-year period comparing adolescents and young adults with asthma or epilepsy with healthy controls. METHODS: This research used data from the British Household Panel Survey (1991-2009) to compare healthy 16 to 25-year-olds (n = 7342) with individuals with asthma (n = 1798) and epilepsy (n = 117). Psychological distress was measured using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, generalised linear modelling was used to examine risk of psychological distress over time. RESULTS: Using healthy individuals as the reference category, prevalence ratios for psychological distress among individuals with asthma and epilepsy ranged from 1.1 to 2.7 and 2.3 to 7.0, respectively. Controlling for potential confounding factors (sex, marital status, employment status, income), risk for psychological distress was increased among individuals with asthma (OR = 1.94, p < 0.0001) or epilepsy (OR = 3.45, p = 0.0002) compared with healthy controls during the follow-up. CONCLUSION: Recognizing the increased risk among individuals with physical illness, paediatric and adult health professionals are well positioned to facilitate successful transition to adult health services and prevent or reduce psychological distress in this vulnerable population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".